14 Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 752

Section 752 provides a six-year limitations period for breach of contract actions, including those involving governmental agencies.

Paradis v. School Administrative District No. 33 School Board · filed 1982-06-07

Her claim was subject to the six-year statute of limitation, 14 M.R.S.A. § 752 (1980), that applies in general to suits for breach of contract, including those entered into by a governmental agency.

Section 752 provides a six-year limitations period for civil actions.

State v. Bob Chambers Ford, Inc. · filed 1987-03-10

Accordingly, the trial court properly held that the six-year statute of limitations established by 14 M.R.S.A. § 752 (1980) applies.

Section 752 provides a six-year limitations period for civil actions.

DeSalle v. Key Bank of Southern Maine · filed 1988-05-17

In Maine, the appropriate statute is the six-year statute of limitations, 14 M.R.S.A. § 752. ... Since Plaintiff brought this action within the six-year limitation period, Defendants’ motion must be denied.

Section 752 provides a six-year limitations period for suits of this kind.

Sciaraffa v. Oxford Paper Company · filed 1992-10-25

In accord with these authorities, this Court holds that the timeliness of plaintiffs’ Section 301 suit against Oxford is to be determined by reference to the state limitation applicable to similar suits, which in this case is six years. See 14 M.R.S.A. § 752 (1964). The action was timely brought.

Section 752 provides a six-year limitations period for civil actions.

Henriksen v. Cameron · filed 1993-03-24

The appropriate limitations period for intentional in*1143fliction of emotional distress claims is six years, not two. 14 M.R.S.A. § 752 (1980).

Section 752 provides a six-year limitations period for civil actions.

John W. Goodwin, Inc. v. Fox · filed 1994-06-06

Moreover, “the period provided by law for commencing the action against the party to be brought in by amendment” referred to in Rule 15(c) is, in the case of Campbell, six years. 14 M.R.S.A. § 752 (1980 & Supp.1993).

Section 752 provides a six-year limitations period for civil actions.

McKenney v. Greene Acres Manor · filed 1994-11-10

The First Circuit Court of Appeals has had occasion to apply the Wilson rule to a section 1983 claim arising in Maine, holding that the residual six-year statute of limitations set forth in 14 M.R.S.A. § 752 (1980) “is the appropriate one to be used for section 1983 cases in the state of Maine.” ... Accordingly, we agree with the First Circuit that Maine’s six-year residual statute of limitations applies to all section 1983 cases arising in Maine, including eases filed by a personal representative on behalf of a decedent’s estate.

Section 752 provides a six-year limitations period for civil actions.

Bolduc v. National Semiconductor Corp. · filed 1998-12-21

Disagreeing, Bolduc argues that Maine’s six-year limitations statute, 14 M.R.S.A. § 752, which applies to all state civil actions, applies to this claim. ... However, here the Maine legislature simply did not adopt the statute of limitations provision as the FLSA did. This Court will not adopt one for it. Maine has declared that its statute of limitations for civil actions is six years. The Court will, thus, apply the six-year statute of limitations to this action and deny summary judgment this claim. Accordingly, Bolduc is limited to recovering overtime compensation accrued during the six years prior to filing the Complaint in this matter. Bolduc may, therefore recover under state law overtime earned for hours worked in excess of forty hours a week from April 17, 1992, until June 26, 1996.

Section 752 sets a six-year limitations period for civil actions, but an ongoing tort can avoid the bar while the harm continues.

Lefebvre v. Central Maine Power Co. · filed 1998-05-26

Generally under Maine law, “[f|or any civil action, including a claim for strict liability, the statute of limitations is six years.” ... Because Plaintiff alleges continuing harm caused by Defendant’s disposal, the Court finds the Maine Law Court’s analysis in Jacques persuasive in the context of Plaintiffs strict liability claim. Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on this claim.

Section 752 provides a six-year limitations period for civil actions.

Conners v. Maine Medical Center · filed 1999-03-03

The Court finds that a claim for discrimination brought under the ADA is best characterized as a claim for personal injury. Maine has a six-year statute of limitations for all civil actions, 14 M.R.S.A. § 752. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that the six-year statute of limitations that applies to all civil actions applies to Mr. Conners’ ADA claim rather than the more specific two-year limitation period contained in the MHRA.

Section 752 imposes a six-year limitations period on tort claims arising from a breach of duty.

Penobscot Energy Recovery Co. v. Bos-Hatten, Inc. · filed 2000-08-30

Assuming the allegations are true, under Dunelawn, Bos-Hatten breached its duty to PERC at the time it delivered and installed the by-pass condenser in 1987 and the statute of limitations on the tort claims arising out of this breach ran six years later in 1993. See 14 M.R.S.A. § 752.

Section 752 imposes a six-year limitations period on civil actions.

Francis v. Stinson · filed 2000-10-17

The statute of limitations period applicable to the plaintiffs claims against the defendants is six years. 14 M.R.S.A. § 752 (1980). Because the conduct of the defendants complained about occurred in the 1980s, and plaintiffs’ complaint was filed in 1995, the six-year statute of limitations bars their action.

Section 752 applies its limitations period to a federal takings claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Stickney v. City of Saco · filed 2001-05-02

Similarly, plaintiffs’ federal takings claim, pursuant to § 1983, has been extinguished by the expiration period prescribed under 14 M.R.S.A. § 752 (1980).

Section 752 requires claims to be filed within six years of the conduct giving rise to them.

Johanson v. Dunnington · filed 2001-12-12

Pursuant to 14 M.R.S.A. § 752, the Johan-sons were required to file those claims within six years of the conduct they now challenge.

Section 752 establishes a six-year limitations period for civil actions.

Mangan v. Rumo · filed 2002-05-29

The applicable statute of limitations for Count I, as for the other counts, is six years, as established by 14 M.R.S.A. § 752.

Section 752 gives negligence actions a six-year limitations period.

Kennedy v. Voorneveld · filed 2002-06-03

Consequently, the applicable period of limitations 1S Six years rather than the four years that would control this action under Florida law. The plaintiff commenced this action on the day before it would have been barred under section 752. Therefore, based on the plaintiff’s allegations of the accident date, the provisions of section 752 do not bar this action.

Section 752 requires civil actions to be filed within six years after the cause of action accrues.

McLaughlin v. UNUM Life Insurance Co. of America · filed 2002-10-08

Here, Plaintiff was put on notice in August 1994, that her claim was subject to the mental illness limitation. It was at that time that she first discovered, or at the very least, should have discovered, that her benefits would be discontinued in August 1996. Consistent with the “discovery rule,” the six-year limitations period under Maine law began to run in August 1994, and expired before Plaintiff filed suit.

Section 752 supplies a six-year limitations period for personal injury actions.

Napier v. State of Maine, Dep't of Corr. · filed 2002-11-18

No authority is cited by the defendant to rebut the conclusion which must be drawn here, namely that as to the two counts which rely on the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, this court is to yield to federal law in applying a statute of limitations which, by virtue of that body of law, must be our limitation on personal injury actions, namely six years. 14 M.R.S.A. § 752. Thus, because these federal civil rights causes of action were commenced within six years of their accrual, they cannot be dismissed on the basis that they are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

Section 752 bars civil actions filed more than six years after they accrue.

Woodbury v. Hammond Lumber Co. · filed 2003-03-11

Additionally, it is clear that there is a 6-year statute of limitations for all civil actions. 14 M.R.S.A. § 752 (1980). This case was filed on September 10, 2002 regarding an incident of July 16, 1995. To be within the statute of limitations, the case would have had to be filed by July 17, 2001 - more than a year before the actual filing.

Section 752 requires civil actions to be commenced within six years after the cause of action accrues.

Siegemund v. Shapland · filed 2004-02-26

Under Maine law, “[a]ll civil actions shall be commenced within 6 years after the cause of action accrues ....” 14 M.R.S.A. § 752 (2003).

Section 752 requires civil actions to be brought within six years after accrual and prevents laches from extending that period.

Maine Municipal Employees Health Trust v. Maloney · filed 2004-04-09

The statute of limitations, 14 M.R.S.A. § 752, imposes a maximum time period that applies to “all civil actions,” including equitable claims.

Section 752 bars a civil action filed more than six years after the claim accrued.

Wood v. Patrons Oxford Mut. Ins. Co. · filed 2004-07-01

The pleadings in fact establish that the accident occurred more than Six years prior to the date Wood commenced this action. Without more, Wood’s claim against Perry would be time ... barred. See 14 M.R.S.A. § 752.

Section 752 provides the six-year personal injury limitations period for Title IX sex discrimination claims.

Lakshman v. University of Maine System · filed 2004-08-06

Because Title IX redresses sex discrimination, an injury to fundamental individual rights, this Court concludes it should apply the statute of limitations governing personal injury actions. 14 M.R.S.A. § 752; De Salle, 685 F.Supp. at 285 (applying 6 year statute of limitations to § 1981 claim); Small, 796 F.2d at 545-49 (applying 6 year statute of limitations to § 1983 claim); McKenney v. Greene Acres Manor, 650 A.2d at 701 (applying 6 year statute of limitations to § 1983 claims). This Court will consider only those claims from February 20,1997, forward, including the alleged failures to promote in 1998 and 2000, the failure to award the mycology position in 1997, the alleged pay disparities from February 20, 1997, onward, and the claim of a hostile work environment.

Section 752 requires civil actions to be commenced within six years after the cause of action accrues.

Brown v. Thaler · filed 2004-08-31

Except as otherwise provided by statute, all civil actions in Maine “shall be commenced within 6 years after the cause of action accrues and not afterwards.” 14 M.R.S.A. § 752 (2003).

Section 752 generally requires a tortious interference with an expected inheritance claim to be commenced within six years after it accrues.

Weaver v. Hall · filed 2005-05-06

A cause of action for tortious interference with an expected inheritance is governed by 14 M.R.S.A. § 752 (2003). See id.; and Francis v. Stinson, 2000 ME 173, 7 58, 760 A.2d 209, 220. Under that statute, plaintiffs’ cause of action ordinarily must be commenced within six years after it accrues. See 14 M.R.S.A. § 752. In Maine, a claim for tortious interference with an expectancy generally accrues at the time of the interference, which is the time of the transfer of the asset which would have otherwise passed through the will, but for the claimed tortious interference. See Burdzel v. Sobus, 2000 ME 84, 7 8, 750 A.2d 573, 576; Stinson, 2000 ME 173, 58, 760 A.2d at 220.

Section 752 provides a six-year limitations period for claims other than battery.

Guptill v. Martin · filed 2005-05-25

Pursuant to 14 M.R.S.A § 752, Guptill would have had until January 12, 1987 to bring any other claim that may have accrued while he was a minor.

Section 752 bars a tort action filed more than six years after accrual, subject to waiver or estoppel.

Halsey v. Bouffard · filed 2005-07-19

The statement of uncontested material facts set forth above makes it clear that, although only by a matter of hours, the plaintiff's complaint was filed after the deadline set by the applicable six-year statute of limitations. 14 M.R.S.A. § 752.

Section 752 imposes a six-year limitations period on civil actions.

Verizon New England v. Fleet Electrical Services · filed 2006-06-02

This action was brought more than 10 years after the wrongful act / breach, well after expiration of the six-year statute of limitations on civil actions. See 14 M.R.S.A. § 752.

Section 752 provides a six-year limitations period for civil actions.

Marcello v. Maine · filed 2006-10-24

In Maine, the general limitations period for civil actions is six years. 14 M.R.S.A. § 752. FRR rightly points out that Plaintiffs’ discrete claims arising before May 31, 2000, six years before the date the Complaint was filed, are barred by the statute of limitations. ... Because each is barred by Maine’s six year statute of limitations, this Court will not reach the merits of either claim.

Section 752 requires a negligence action arising from a car accident to be commenced within six years after the cause of action accrues.

Leville v. Grant · filed 2007-02-07

Similar to her personal jurisdiction argument, Grant also argues that the Court's jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case expired in April 2006 when the six-year statute of limitations had run on Leville's cause of action. However, as Grant herself notes in her brief, "[a]ny party seeking damages in negligence from a car accident must commence a civil action within six years from the date that action accrued" (emphasis added). See 14 M.R.S.A. § 752. It is undisputed that Leville filed her Complaint within the six-year statute of limitations, thus commencing her civil action. Thus, the Court rejects Grant's subject matter jurisdiction argument.

Section 752 bars civil actions brought more than six years after a cause of action accrues but does not bar introducing evidence older than six years.

Marcello v. Maine · filed 2007-05-22

Presumably, the Plaintiffs are referring to the six year statute of limitations in Maine law, which, by its terms, applies to the commencement of civil actions, not judgment. ... Furthermore, the statute of limitations does not apply to bar the introduction of evidence that is more than six years old; rather, it prevents plaintiffs from bringing suit based on stale claims.

Section 752 requires civil actions to be brought within six years.

Oppenheim v. Hutchinson · filed 2007-06-19

Accordingly, the Superi- or Court properly dismissed Oppenheim’s second suit because it was filed outside of the statutory limitations period, 14 M.R.S. § 752.

Section 752 sets a default six-year limit for civil actions after the cause of action accrues, unless an exception or special provision applies.

Town of Eddington v. University of Maine Foundation · filed 2007-06-21

Because we conclude that 14 M.R.S. § 752 does not limit the time for bringing this action, we vacate the judgment.

Section 752 provides a six-year limitations period for civil actions.

Knowlton v. Rowe · filed 2007-07-17

The statute of limitations for section 1983 claims is six years. 14 M.R.S. § 752 (2008); Stickney v. City of Saco, 2001 ME 69, ~ 27, 770 A.2d 592, 603; McKenney v. Greene Acres Manor, 650 A.2d 699, 701 (Me. 1994).

Section 752 generally requires a civil action to be filed within six years after the claim accrues; a quiet title action filed more than six years after the property transfer is barred.

Efstathiou v. Aspinquid, Inc. · filed 2008-09-23

Generally, a civil action must be commenced within six years after the cause of action accrues. 14 M.R.S. § 752 (2007).2 Merrill failed to file her quiet title action within six years after the transfer, and that action is therefore barred.

Section 752’s six-year period begins when the plaintiff sustains a judicially cognizable injury, such as an alleged overpayment at purchase.

McKinnon v. Honeywell International, Inc. · filed 2009-07-16

In accordance with this standard, the injury McKinnon purports to have sustained as to the three Maine purchases occurred in 1986, when McKinnon alleges that he overpaid for the three circular thermostats. Thus, pursuant to the plain language of 14 M.R.S. § 752, the six-year limitations period on McKinnon’s claim commenced in 1986 and expired in 1992.

Section 752 provides a six-year limitations period for a claim under the Improvident Transfers of Title Act.

Baillargeon v. Estate of Dolores A. Daigle · filed 2010-11-30

The limitations period for asserting a claim under the Improvident Transfers of Title Act is six years. 33 M.R.S. § 1023(3); 14 M.R.S. § 752. ... Roger’s answer and counterclaim under the Improvident Transfers of Title Act was filed in 2007, outside the six-year limitations period.

Section 752 provides a six-year period for civil actions after the cause of action accrues and governs a Maine breach-of-contract suit when neither exception to the forum’s limitations rule applies.

Tornesello v. Tisdale · filed 2008-05-15

Maine’s general statute of limitations requires that a civil action be brought within six years after the cause of action accrues. 14 M.R.S. § 752 (2007). ... Because neither exception to the general rule applies, Maine will apply its statute of limitations to this suit.

Section 752’s six-year limitations period applies to equitable partnership accounting and asset-distribution claims unless another statutory period governs.

Higgins v. Higgins · filed 2010-04-07

However, section 752 applies to "la]II civil actions" that are not specifically subject to some other statutory period of limitations. This comprehensively framed scope of applicability certainly includes the claims at issue here.

Section 752 imposes a six-year limitations period on legal malpractice actions.

Haskell v. Hastings · filed 2010-09-28

Maine imposes a six-year statute of limitations on actions for legal malpractice.

Section 752 gives a claimant six years after a civil cause of action accrues to file suit.

OFFICEMAX INC. v. Sousa · filed 2011-03-24

The Court does not need to reach the question of whether Mr. Steele’s ten-year-old claim survives summary judgment. It is clear on this record that his 2007 claim falls within the six year statute for civil actions and therefore his cause of action survives OfficeMax’s dispositive motion.

Section 752 places events occurring more than six years before an intentional infliction of emotional distress action outside the limitations period.

Graham v. Brown · filed 2011-08-23

The court correctly determined that events occurring before this date would be outside the six-year statute of limitations.

Section 752 provides a six-year limitations period for the Maine claim at issue.

LaRocque v. TRS Recovery Services, Inc. · filed 2012-07-17

Maine has a six-year statute of limitations for such a claim. 14 M.R.S.A. § 752.

Section 752's six-year limitations period bars an asbestos-related civil action filed more than six years after the disease manifested.

McKinnon v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. · filed 2013-09-05

Defendants assert, and the Court agrees, that the date of death and the onset of Mr. McKinnon's disease forecloses this action regardless of whether the court applies the general six-year statute of limitations, see 14 M.R.S. § 752 (2012) ("All civil actions shall be commenced within 6 years after the cause of action accrues and not afterwards"), or the two-year statute of limitations of the Wrongful Death Statute, see 18-A ... M.R.S. § 2-804(b) ("An action under this section must be commenced within 2 years after the decedent's death.").

Section 752 sets a six-year limitations period for civil actions.

Dineen v. Six Flags New England, Inc. · filed 2014-05-07

According to Maine law, all civil actions have a six-year statute oflimitations. 14 M.R.S. § 752 (2013). ... Plaintiff filed the complaint within the statutory period.

Section 752 requires civil actions to be filed within six years after the cause of action accrues, unless another provision applies.

Blunt Construction Inc. v. Tyrell · filed 2014-06-23

"All civil actions shall be commenced within 6 years after the cause of action accrues and not afterwards, ... except as otherwise specially provided." 14 M.R.S. § 752. (2013). ... If the work was completed in 2008 and the invoice was sent in 2008 then Plaintiffs complaint would have been filed within the statutory period.

Section 752’s six-year limitations period bars a civil action filed more than six years after the cause of action accrues.

Halliday v. Henry · filed 2015-05-12

The admitted facts establish as a matter of law that the Hallidays’ complaint is barred by either limitations period that could be held to apply. ... Based on the summary judgment record, the Hallidays’ cause of action accrued no later than 2005, when the Hallidays first complained to Henry and Center that their property was flooded as a result of the construction.

Section 752’s six-year limitations period applies to attorney fee collection claims and does not bar an entire claim when some fees were earned or billed within that period.

Leete & Lemieux, P.A. v. Horowitz · filed 2012-05-31

It does appear, however, that at least some of L & L’s fees were earned and billings occurred within the six-year limitations period. Thus, the statute of limitations could not have barred L & L’s claim in its entirety.

Section 752 supplies the six-year Maine personal injury limitations period borrowed for a Rehabilitation Act employment discrimination claim.

Richards v. City of Bangor · filed 2012-06-28

It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED. ... I recommend that the Court apply the Maine statute of limitation that governs personal injury actions, which would mean the applicable limitation period is six years and that Plaintiffs Rehabilitation Act claim is timely. See 14 M.R.S. § 752.

Section 752 sets a six-year limitations period for breach of contract actions.

Flynn v. Liberty · filed 2014-03-11

The statute of limitations for a breach of contract action is six years.

Section 752 sets a six-year limitations period for common law nuisance claims.

Halliday v. Henry · filed 2014-08-12

The statute of limitations for common law nuisance is six years.

Section 752 gives six years to bring an equitable lien claim based on unjust enrichment, measured from when the claim accrues.

U.S. Bank National Association as Trsutee v. Adams · filed 2014-10-07

This unjust enrichment claim accrued in December of 2005, the date on which Dorothy signed the contested note and mortgage to ABC, using some of the proceeds to pay off the earlier mortgage on the property she and her brother own. The complaint was not filed until May 14, 2012, which was more than six years later. Thus, the action should have been dismissed pursuant to section 752.

Section 752 gives a party six years from accrual to bring a breach of contract action.

Estate of Thomas P. Curran, Sr. v. Curran · filed 2015-03-27

The applicable statute of limitations for a breach of contract action is six years. 14 M.R.S. § 752 (2014). ... Given these facts, the cause of action accrued at the latest in 1992. This suit was not filed until2009. Plaintiff's action to enforce the separation agreement is barred by the six-year statute of limitations applicable to contracts.

Section 752's six-year limitations period is not tolled for a shareholder's derivative claims when the shareholder knew enough to pursue them within that period.

Miller v. Miller · filed 2015-08-07

For these reasons, the court concludes that, even if SAM Miller, Inc. has been adversely dominated by the individual Defendants, the statute oflimitations has not been tolled as to Plaintiffs claims to the extent they seek relief based on wrongful acts by the individual Defendants occurring more than six years before the action was filed, such as relief invalidating the lease ab initio and seeking damages on behalf of SAM Miller, Inc. ab initio.

Section 752 provides a six-year limitations period for civil actions, including legal malpractice claims.

Brooks v. Lemieux · filed 2016-02-04

Thus, under the applicable statute of limitations, any claims alleging Lemieux failed to conduct certain discovery expired on May 8, 2014.

Section 752 imposes a six-year limitations period on civil actions, whether they seek legal or equitable relief.

Baroudi v. Maselli · filed 2016-06-15

The general six-year statute of limitation enumerated in§ 752 applies to "all civil action" whether sounding in law or equity.

Section 752 requires negligence actions to be commenced within six years after the cause of action accrues.

Nelson v. Chapin · filed 2016-10-06

Negligence claims must be commenced "within six years after the cause of action accrues ." 14 M.R.S. § 752; see also Oceanside at Pine Point Condominium Owners Ass 'n v. Peachtree Doors, 659 A.2d 267, 272 (Me. 1995). ... Therefore, return of service was timely filed, and the claim is not time-baned by statute of limitations.

Section 752 gives a claimant six years to bring a civil action after payment becomes due.

Lee v. Lugg · filed 2017-04-20

The general six-year statute of limitations applies, see 14 M.R.S. § 752. ... Likewise, because reimbursement was due May 10, 2009, less than six years before the complaint was filed in this case, the claim is not time-barred.

Section 752 gives a plaintiff six years from accrual to bring breach of contract, fraud, or Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act claims.

Watson v. Bowker · filed 2017-11-06

Each of these has a six-year statute of limitations from the time the cause of action accrues. 14 M.R.S. § 752. ... Plaintiff's three causes of action accrued by 1998 at the latest, when Defendant sold off three acres of the land promised to Ms. Watson.

Section 752's six-year limitations period bars a fraud claim when information alerting the plaintiff to the loss was available more than six years before suit.

Landry v. Bacon · filed 2018-01-29

All of the information to alert plaintiff that his Fidelity account balance was decreasing was available to him at any time from March 7, 2007 onward. See J. Geils Band, 76 F.3d at 1256. Plaintiff's fraud claim is barred by the six-year statute of limitations. 14 M.R.S. § 752.

Section 752's six-year limitations period applies to a premises liability claim against a healthcare provider when the alleged injury does not arise from healthcare services.

Salerno v. Spectrum Medical Group · filed 2018-11-28

As such, this action does not fall under the MHSA and was timely commenced under 14 M.R.S. § 752.

Section 752 requires a civil action for attorney malpractice to be commenced within six years after the claim accrues.

Packgen, Inc. v. Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer & Nelson, P.A. · filed 2019-06-06

In this case, the act giving rise to Packgen’s alleged injury occurred on May 29, 2008, and Packgen’s claim expired on May 29, 2014, six years after the service of the defective notice letter, and it is now time barred, 14 M.R.S. §§ 752, 753-B.

Section 752 imposes a six-year limit on equitable, tort, and contract actions.

John F. Murphy Homes, Inc. v. State of Maine · filed 2017-04-11

Beyond ignoring the 120-day- review requirement throughout the ten years of underpayments, $3.7 million of the sum that Murphy Homes now seeks to recover would have been paid in the seven years before April 12, 2007, outside of the six-year statute of limitations, 14 M.R.S. § 752 (2016), that limits equitable, tort, or contract actions.

Section 752 requires civil claims to be filed within six years after they accrue unless another statute specially provides a different limitations period.

Denutte v. U.S. Bank, N.A. · filed 2019-07-30

The statute of limitations on a civil claim requires the aggrieved party to commence an action within six years after the cause of action accrues unless another limitations period is “specially provided” by a different statute, in which case the “specially provided” period applies.

Section 752 limits a civil action to claims that accrued within six years before the complaint was filed.

Herrick v. Montejano · filed 2020-12-02

Because the Complaint was filed on July 31, 2019, however, the Plaintiffs may only pursue relief for a cause of action which accrued on or after July 31, 2013.

Section 752 gives six years to bring a car crash injury claim; an amended claim filed after that period is timely only if it relates back to the original complaint.

Turner v. Bates · filed 2021-02-26

The statute of limitations applicable to this action is six years. 14 M.R.S. § 752. The complaint naming Ricky Bates was filed on the last possible date and was timely as to Ricky Bates. The Amended Complaint, naming Meghan Bates, was filed more than six years after the cause of action accrued. Therefore, the Amended Complaint is barred by the statute of limitations unless the amendment relates back to the date of filing of the original complaint.

Section 752 gives a plaintiff six years to file a civil action.

Abraham v. Broaddus · filed 2021-08-05

The facts giving rise to a potential cause of action against Christian Darling arose in March, 2015. The Plaintiffs had six years from that date to file a lawsuit. See 14 M.R.S. § 752.

Section 752 sets a six-year limitations period for unenumerated civil actions, including personal injury claims.

KRISTIANSEN v. TOWN OF KITTERY · filed 2021-09-06

Maine’s statute of limitations for all unenumerated civil actions, including personal injury torts, is six years from the date of accrual. See 14 M.R.S.A. § 752 (Westlaw through 2021 1st Special Sess.).

Section 752 bars civil claims filed more than six years after they accrue.

Merrill v. Martin · filed 2022-01-31

The Plaintiffs claims are barred by the operation of 14 M.R.S. § 752.

Section 752 sets a six-year limitations period for tort actions.

YERRAMSETTY v. DUNKIN' DONUTS NORTHEAST INC · filed 2020-09-17

Maine has a 6-year statute of limitations for tort cases such as this. 14 M.R.S.A. § 752.

Section 752 applies a six-year limitations period to unpaid wages claims.

Bartlett v. Morrison · filed 2021-07-01

There is a six-year statute of limitations that applies to unpaid wages claims. 14 M.R.S. § 752 (2020). Defendant filed her counterclaim on February 19, 2020. Summary judgment must be granted as to Plaintiff, and for all wages predating February 19, 2014.

Section 752’s limitations period did not bar a new declaratory judgment action concerning the neighboring property.

Slager v. Bell · filed 2021-11-02

Although a complaint for judicial review of the CEO’s decision could not be commenced anew because such an appeal must be commenced within thirty days after the challenged governmental act or failure to act, see M.R. Civ. P. 80B(b), a new declaratory judgment action would not be time-barred, see 14 M.R.S. §§ 752, 5953 (2021).

Section 752 gives a plaintiff six years from accrual to bring a civil action unless another provision sets a different period.

THAO v. LH HOUSING LLC · filed 2022-08-10

Thus, at least some of LH Housing’s allegedly negligent conduct is alleged to have happened within six years of the filing of the complaint.

Section 752 imposes a six-year limitations period from accrual on all civil actions.

Moody's Co-Worker Owned v. KMA Human Resources Consulting LLC · filed 2023-07-25

Section 752 was written broadly to impose a six-year limitation upon “falll civil actions” upon their accrual. 14 M.R.S. § 752. The statute is unambiguous and encumbers all civil actions.

Section 752 applies a six-year limitations period to a claim seeking to invalidate a loan modification agreement.

TAITT v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING INC · filed 2025-07-21

I agree with Defendants that a claim to invalidate the loan modification agreement is governed by Maine’s general purpose, six- year limitation period. 14 M.R.S. § 752.

Section 752 gives Maine civil actions a six-year limitations period after the cause of action accrues, unless another period is specified.

EPPICH · filed 2026-05-15

Unlike the FLSA, all Maine civil actions, unless otherwise specified, are subject to a six-year statute of limitations after the cause of action accrues. See 14 M.R.S.A. § 752. All of Mr. Eppich’s alleged overtime damages accrued within six years of July 10, 2020, the date he opted in to the federal lawsuit. Accordingly, none of Mr. Eppich’s state law claims for overtime wages are barred by the statute of limitations and FedEx’s motion for partial summary judgement with respect to these state law claims is DENIED.

Section 752 applies a six-year limitations period to actions to quiet title.

Masucci v. Judy's Moody, LLC · filed 2022-04-15

An action to quiet title is a civil action to which the six ~year statute of limitations applies. See Efstathiou v. Aspinquid Inc., 2008 ME 145, ,r 14, 956 A.2d 110; 14 M.R.S. § 752 (2021).

Section 752’s six-year limitations period applies to quiet title actions, and a claim based on a deed accrues when the claimant receives it.

Oakes v. Town of Richmond · filed 2023-10-03

In any event, if Oakes could have pursued an action to quiet title, her claim would have accrued when she received her deed, which was more than six years from the date she filed her action and thus beyond the applicable limitations period. See 14 M.R.S. § 752 (2023); Efstathiou v. Aspinquid, Inc., 2008 ME 145, ¶ 14, 956 A.2d 110 (applying section 752 to a quiet title action). Hence, the trial court correctly concluded that Oakes could not pursue an action to quiet title.

Section 752 gives a lender six years to bring a claim to reform a mortgage, starting when the alleged mistake occurs.

US BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION NOT IN ITS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY BUT SOLELY AS OWNER TRUSTEE FOR VRMTG ASSET TRUST v. TENPENNY · filed 2023-03-07

Much like the action in Adams, the equitable claim of reformation of mortgage is not an action to enforce the note or mortgage, so it is subject to the six-year statute of limitations under section 752 and not the twenty-year statute of limitations under section 751.

Section 752’s six-year limitations period applies to a procedural due process claim.

FEDEQ DV004 LLC v. CITY OF PORTLAND · filed 2024-03-31

As to procedure, FEDEQ 04’s due process claim is governed by the six-year statute of limitations under 14 M.R.S.A. § 752 and, accordingly, is timely.

Section 752’s six-year limitations period applies to a claim to reform a deed or mortgage, even when the claim accompanies a foreclosure action.

WELLS FARGO BANK NA v. KANE · filed 2025-06-12

Reformation is separate from foreclosure and is subject to the six-year statute of limitations.

Section 752 supplies a six-year limitations period that made this common-law tort action timely.

Hossler Ex Rel. Dows v. Barry · filed 1979-06-26

The defendant has conceded that if Maine’s statute of limitations applies then the appropriate period is the six-year statute, 14 M.R.S.A. § 752, rather than the one-year statute, 18 M.R.S.A. § 2651. Proceeding upon this not unreasonable assumption, ... we find the plaintiff’s suit timely brought.

Section 752 gives a plaintiff six years from the injury to assert a negligence claim.

Hewett v. Kennebec Valley Mental Health Ass'n · filed 1987-08-17

Pursuant to section 752, the plaintiff had six years from the time of Alena’s injuries, which allegedly occurred on or about December 14, 1977, to assert the independent negligence claim against the Association.

Section 752 supplies a six-year limitations period for Section 1983 claims in Maine.

LAUZON v. DODD · filed 2019-07-09

In Maine, cases brought under section 1983 are subject to a six-year statute of limitations pursuant to 14 M.R.S.A. § 752.

Section 752 supplies a six-year limitations period for section 1983 actions brought in Maine.

GIRARD v. DODD · filed 2019-08-02

In Maine, cases brought under section 1983 are subject to a six-year statute of limitations pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 752.

Section 752 supplies a six-year limitations period for § 1983 actions brought in Maine.

OUELLETTE v. GAUDETTE · filed 2019-09-18

In Maine, cases brought under section 1983 are subject to the six-year statute of limitations set forth in 14 M.R.S. § 752.

Section 752 supplies the six-year limitations period for § 1983 actions brought in Maine.

FRECHETTE v. GAUDETTE · filed 2019-11-08

In Maine, cases brought under section 1983 are subject to the six-year statute of limitations set forth in 14 M.R.S. § 752.

Section 752 supplies the six-year limitations period for § 1983 actions brought in Maine.

WESCOTT v. MAINE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS · filed 2022-01-05

That means that, in Maine, a § 1983 action is subject to a six-year limitation period. 14 M.R.S. § 752.

Section 752 provides a six-year limitations period for civil actions, including § 1983 claims when Maine limitations law applies.

SULLIVAN v. CHESTER WATER AUTHORITY · filed 2022-07-22

Plaintiff’s Pennsylvania- based claims are therefore time-barred whether Pennsylvania’s two-year statute of limitations or Maine’s six-year statute of limitations applies. Any Maine-based claims arising prior to May 17, 2016, would also be time-barred.

Section 752 requires civil actions to be commenced within six years after the cause of action accrues.

Kendall v. Boynton · filed 2000-06-08

“All civil actions shall be commenced within six years after the cause of action accrues...” 14 M.R.S.A. § 752. The cause of action, if any, accrued on October 5, 1948.

Section 752 requires civil actions to be commenced within six years after the cause of action accrues.

State of Maine v. Chittim · filed 2000-12-05

For the same reason, the State’s action is not time-barred by the six-year statute of limitations.

Section 752 provides a six-year limitations period for Maine antitrust and unfair trade practices claims, running when the plaintiff receives a judicially recognizable injury.

Taylor v. Philip Morris Inc. · filed 2001-05-29

Both the Maine Antitrust Act and the Unfair Trade Practices Act are governed by a six year of statute of limitations. 14 M.R.S.A. § 752.. The cause of action accrues when the plaintiff “receive[s] a judicially recognizable injury”. Bozzuto v. Ouellette 408 A.2d 697, 699 (Me. 1979). Defendants argue that because Plaintiffs’ Complaint was filed on March 24, 2000, claims arising before March 24, 1994 are barred.

Section 752 provides a six-year limitations period for most civil actions, measured from accrual.

Johanson v. Dunnington · filed 2001-06-08

The standard statute of limitations in Maine for most civil cases is six years from the accrual date of the cause of action. See 14 M.R.S.A. §752. Absent a more specific statute this suit would be untimely as to everything but the contribution claim.

Section 752 generally gives civil actions a six-year limitations period; for this UCSPA claim, the period began no earlier than the insured's judicially cognizable loss.

US Bank, N.A. v. HLC Escrow, Inc. · filed 2018-04-25

Under Maine law, a cause of action ordinarily does not accrue until the plaintiff incurs a judicially cognizable injury. ... Hence, a cause of action based on a title insurer's refusal to indemnify a mortgagee will ordinarily accrue, at the earliest, when the mortgagee's security "proves inadequate," thus establishing a loss that triggers the insurer's duty to indemnify. ... Accordingly, First American's denial of US Bank's earlier-filed insurance claim could not have served as the accrual date for its UCSPA cause of action. That cause of action accrued no earlier than the close of the adversary proceeding, which falls within Maine's six-year limitations period.

Section 752 gives a plaintiff six years to bring a tort action, with the period beginning when harm to a protected interest occurs even if only nominal damages or equitable relief is then available.

Rared Manchester NH LLC v. Rite Aid of New Hampshire Inc · filed 2012-08-29

Maine has a six-year statute of limitations for tort actions. Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 14, § 752. ... Under Maine law, a party is injured when its legal rights have been violated, even if nominal damages or equitable remedies are the only forms of recourse available to it at that time. ... Here, harm to the lessor occurred at the time that Rared executed the lease indenture.

Section 752 requires civil actions to be brought within six years after the cause of action accrues.

Burke v. Hamilton Beach Division, Scovill Manufacturing Co. · filed 1981-01-02

The general statute of limitations, 14 M.R.S.A. § 752, which here governs, runs for six years from the time a “cause of action accrues.” The time of accrual depends on the precise substantive elements of each cause of action.

Section 752's six-year limitations period for a tort action begins when the plaintiff sustains a judicially cognizable injury.

Sturgeon v. Marois Bros., Inc. · filed 1986-07-09

Generally, a cause of action in tort accrues when the plaintiff sustains a judicially cognizable injury. ... Thus, the critical fact that the period of limitation commenced in 1977 is not established beyond dispute.

Section 752 starts the six-year limitations period when the particular potential plaintiff has a judicially recognizable claim against the defendant.

Williams v. Ford Motor Company · filed 1975-07-28

We consider our Legislature’s language to be unambiguous. The statute commences to run against a potential action when the particular potential plaintiff has a judicially recognizable claim against the defendant. We can come to no other conclusion on the basis of the agreed facts here but that the present plaintiffs had no such claims against the defendant until they received their personal injuries, to wit, on August 28, 1972.

Section 752 starts the six-year limitations period when a civil cause of action accrues.

Bozzuto v. Ouellette · filed 1979-12-05

Here on appeal, as in the Superior Court, the critical issue is whether Mr. Bozzuto’s tort cause of action against the deputy sheriff “accrued” at the time of the wrongful sale in August of 1968. Both statutes of limitation by their terms start to run when “the cause of action accrues.” ... In the case at bar the wrongful act was complete in August, 1968. ... Thus, the conclusion that his cause of action accrued in August of 1968 follows from the holding of this court in Betts v. Norris, 21 Me. 314 (1842): The cause of action against a sheriff for his failure to attach sufficient property to satisfy the eventual judgment accrued when the sheriff’s nonfeasance took place, “and not when it came to be ascertained, by subsequent events, what the precise amount of the injury turned out to be.”

Section 752 requires civil actions to be commenced within six years after the cause of action accrues.

Chiapetta v. Associates · filed 1987-02-25

Chiapetta’s cause of action accrued at the latest on November 7, 1979, when fire destroyed his plant. ... We reject this extension of the “discovery rule.” There was nothing inherently unknowable about the lack of coverage since it was an aspect of the contract of insurance. Moreover, Chiapetta was put on notice by the fire that his insurance policy must be looked to if he were to have relief for his loss. Chiapetta had therefore both reason and means to make an investigation into the extent of coverage on November 7, 1979, the date of the loss, and cannot be heard to argue that he was not cognizant of any lack of coverage until March of 1980.

Section 752 gives six years to bring a civil action, with the period starting when the cause of action accrues.

Palmero v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. · filed 1992-04-22

The limitations period begins to run when a cause of action accrues. ... Accordingly, we hold that the cause of action accrued when Aetna denied Palmero’s request for benefits, and vacate the grant of summary judgment in Aetna’s favor on this issue.

Section 752 requires civil actions to be filed within six years after accrual, with the period expiring on the anniversary date of accrual.

Tesseo v. Brown · filed 1998-06-17

The six-year period commencing on the day following the accrual of the cause of action, however, cannot end after the anniversary date of that accrual without exceeding the six-year limitation period.

Section 752 requires civil actions to be filed within six years after the cause of action accrues.

Northeast Harbor Golf Club, Inc. v. Harris · filed 1999-02-19

The limitations period applicable to the Club’s action for usurping a corporate opportunity is six years. “All civil actions shall be commenced within 6 years after the cause of action accrues and not afterwards.” 14 M.R.S.A. § 752 (1980). ... The Club had a cause of action for taking a corporate opportunity entitling it to seek judicial vindication against Harris, when Harris, as an officer of the Club, took the opportunity to purchase the Gilpin and Smallidge properties in 1979 and 1985 respectively, without first offering those properties to the corporation.

Section 752 requires civil actions to be brought within six years after the cause of action accrues.

Matson v. Babcock · filed 1989-10-18

The applicable statute of limitations runs for six years “after the cause of action accrues,” 14 M.R.S.A. § 752 (1980). ... Under this rule Matson’s malpractice claim would be barred by the statute of limitations. ... Absent the discovery rule, the legal malpractice claim is barred by the statute of limitations.

Section 752 imposes a six-year limitations period measured from when the cause of action accrues.

Kasu Corp. v. Blake, Hall & Sprague, Inc. · filed 1990-11-29

Here, too, we hold that plaintiff suffered a judicially cognizable injury not later than August 6, 1980, when the coverage was needed but unavailable, not on October 15, 1980, when plaintiff discovered the absence of coverage.

Section 752 requires civil actions to be commenced within six years after the cause of action accrues.

Dugan v. Martel · filed 1991-04-03

Dugan concedes that her negligence claim is subject to the limitation found in 14 M.R.S.A. § 752 (1980), which provides in pertinent part that “[a]ll civil actions shall be commenced within 6 years after the cause of action accrues and not after-wards.” ... It is clear, therefore, that Dugan’s cause of action in negligence accrued in October of 1981 because it was then that she suffered a judicially cognizable injury as a result of the cellulose dust, cracked siding, and protruding nails.

Section 752 requires a civil action to be commenced within six years after the cause of action accrues.

Priestman v. Canadian Pacific Ltd. · filed 1992-01-14

Faced with the application of Maine law, Defendant counters by arguing that Plaintiffs causes of action are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 14 M.R.S.A. § 752. Section 752 requires that a civil action be commenced within six years after the cause of action accrues. Here, Plaintiff’s suit was initiated eleven years after Priestman’s injury. Without a tolling Plaintiff’s suit would be barred. In this case, however, tolling is appropriate. For the purposes of the tolling statute, 14 M.R.S.A. § 853, the Court finds that Priest-man was “mentally ill” at the time the action accrued. (Priestman’s mental illness was caused by his injuries).

Section 752 provides a six-year limitations period for civil actions, measured here from the judicially cognizable injury.

Sargent v. Nat'l Gen. Ins. Co. · filed 2000-01-20

There appears to be no dispute between the parties that the six-year statute of limitations in 14 M.R.S.A. § 752 applies to all counts of the complaint. The issue then is when the cause of action accrued, thereby starting the statute of limitations clock. Generally speaking, the cause of action would accrue at the time there is a judicially cognizable injury. Kasu Corp. v. Blake, Hall & Sprague, Inc., 582 A.2d 976, 980 (Me. 1990). In light of the Law Court’s holding in Chiapetta v. Clark Assoc., 521 A.2d 697, 699 (Me. 1987), the cause of action in the present case accrued when the Sargents were involved in the automobile accident in June of 1996. Therefore, their complaint is not barred by the ... statute of limitations.

Section 752 provides a six-year limitations period, and dismissal is improper when the complaint does not clearly show that the claim accrued more than six years before filing.

Jackson v. Borkowski · filed 1993-07-08

The statute of limitations is an affirmative defense. ... Unless it is clear on the face of the complaint that the action is barred by the relevant statute of limitations, dismissal on limitations grounds is improper. ... In this case, it is not clear on the face of the complaint whether the action was filed within six years of the accrual of the Jacksons’ cause of action. ... Since repossession of the vehicle is alleged in the complaint to have occurred in October 1983, a time period that could include dates on or after October 13, dismissal of the complaint on the present state of the record was improper.

The six-year period begins when a zoning classification injures the landowner; a later decision to develop the land does not restart it.

Bog Lake Co. v. Town of Northfield · filed 2008-02-28

If Bog Lake Company is correct in arguing that its decision to develop the land in 2004 gave rise to its cause of action, then no municipality’s zoning classifications could ever be settled, because an owner’s subjective decision at any time to use the land in a different way would simply reset the six-year period of limitation. We decline a construction that would render the statute meaningless in this context. ... Accordingly, absent a challenge to the ordinance itself, Bog Lake Company’s complaint for declaratory judgment, filed eighteen years after the ordinance took effect, is time-barred.

Section 752's six-year period runs separately for each theft from the date it occurs, rather than the date the plaintiff discovers it.

Vessel Svs. Inc. v. Coppersmith · filed 2008-10-29

Although the defendant's acts may constitute a continuing tort, her thefts constitute multiple individual acts. The cause of action for plaintiff accrues at the time of the event, not when it was discovered by plaintiff.

Section 752’s six-year period begins when a tort plaintiff suffers a judicially cognizable injury, even if the plaintiff learns of it later.

Descoteau v. Analogic Corporation · filed 2010-03-18

Thus, this case is governed by the general rule that Plaintiffs cause of action accrued when Defendants’ wrongful act caused an injury for which he was entitled to seek judicial vindication. ... Because Plaintiffs cause of action accrued on February 7, 2003, the pending lawsuit, which was filed June 3, 2009, is untimely.

Section 752 gives plaintiffs six years from accrual to bring a negligence claim for defective home construction; claims based on later repair work may remain timely.

Hawkesorth v. B&M Constr. Co. · filed 2010-03-31

In this case, Plaintiffs cause of action accrued on the date on which Norton's defective work caused them injury. ... Plaintiffs' claims regarding Norton's negligent construction of the home prior to March 13, 2003 are barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiffs' claims relating to work performed on or after March 13, 2003 are not barred.

Section 752 gives six years from accrual to challenge a municipal zoning decision; a challenge to a permit condition accrues when the potential harm is apparent.

Zahares v. Town of Old Orchard Beach · filed 2009-12-01

Municipal zoning decisions are subject to a six-year statute of limitations that begins to run when a cause of action accrues. Bog Lake Co. v. Town of Northfield, 2008 ME 37, <j[ 8, 942 A.2d 700, 703-04 (citing 14 M.R.S.A. § 752 (2007)). Any potential illegality or harm in the condition limiting occupancy of the Zahares' accessory unit to family members was readily apparent in 1996 when it was imposed. ... The statute of limitations has run, barring their challenge.

Section 752's six-year period for negligence and unfair trade practices claims arising from home construction begins when the work is completed, even if the defects are discovered later.

Murphy v. Chamberlain · filed 2011-09-16

On the basis of this case law, the court rejects plaintiffs' first argument that the statute of limitations should not begin to run until they discovered the defects in 2010. ... Thus, any claims sounding in negligence and violation of Unfair Trade Practices as alleged in Counts I and III must have been brought by November 2009 or early 2010 at the latest to fall within the six year statute of limitations and any warranty claims as alleged in Count IV must have been brought by early 2008 at the latest to fall within the four year statute of limitations period.

Section 752’s six-year period for challenging a trust beneficiary’s status runs from the trustees’ formal determination of that status; later distributions do not restart it.

In re George Parsons 1907 Trust · filed 2017-09-05

Turning to the facts at issue here, as the Probate Court held before reaching a new holding based on Tibble, 575 U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. at 1828-29, any cause of action arising from the determination that Maxwell was a beneficiary of the Trust accrued no later than 1996 when a formal resolution was passed recognizing Maxwell as Philippa’s biological son and determining that Maxwell was a legally cognizable beneficiary. That is the event that triggered the running of the six-year statute of limitations. See 14 M.R.S. § 752.

Section 752 gives a negligent misrepresentation claim six years from the alleged misrepresentation to be filed.

Gleichman v. Scarcelli · filed 2019-03-07

The limitations period for actions for negligent misrepresentation run from the time of the alleged misrepresentation, which in this case is no later than 2008, placing the claim outside the six-year statute of limitations of section 752.

The six-year limitations period for a declaratory judgment claim challenging a town’s right to accept a paper street does not begin while that unaccepted right continues to burden the property.

Khalidi v. Town of Cape Elizabeth · filed 2019-05-22

The Town’s inchoate right over the Pilot Point Section—the right to accept the paper street—burdens the Plaintiffs’ property every day, thereby accruing each day. See Britton v. Dep't of Consrv’n, 2009 ME 60, ¶¶ 18-20, 974 A.2d 303. The statute of limitations has thus not begun to run—nor will it, until (and if) the Town accepts the Pilot Point Section.

Section 752’s six-year period begins when the cause of action accrues; when a contract requires internal review before suit, accrual occurs after that review is exhausted.

Estate of Marion Sprague v. Bankers Life and Casualty Company · filed 2021-12-23

Reading 14 M.R.S. § 752 together with the Administrative Rider, the limitations period commenced when the cause of action accrued, and the action accrued when “the party claiming rights under the policy” exhausted the mandatory internal review procedures.

Section 752’s six-year period for an action challenging a town’s right to accept an incipient dedication does not begin until the town formally accepts the dedication.

Pilot Point, LLC v. Town of Cape Elizabeth · filed 2020-07-21

Uncertainty concerning the Town’s inchoate right to accept the Pilot Point Section is an ongoing burden to the homeowners’ property, and therefore the statute of limitations will not begin to run unless and until the Town formally accepts the Pilot Point Section.

Section 752’s six-year period for unjust enrichment claims runs from when the benefit was conferred.

Webber v. Dubord · filed 2020-12-15

The court finds that any unjust enrichment claim accrued when the benefit was conferred on Dubord, which was when the alleged contribution was made. Dubord is entitled to summary judgment as to any such contributions made prior to December 10, 2013.

Section 752 gives a purchaser six years from conveyance to sue a builder for latent defects in a new house.

Troconis v. Graiver Homes, Inc. · filed 2023-04-28

Plaintiffs are correct. "[A] purchaser's suit against a builder to recover for latent defects in the purchaser's new house begins from the date when the house is conveyed." ... Plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit exactly six years after Defendant conveyed the house to them. Their claims are timely.

Section 752 establishes a six-year limitations period for contract actions, which accrue when the contract is breached.

Caruso v. [Maine] State Tax Assessor · filed 2000-11-14

Title 14 M.R.S.A. § 752 provides a six-year statute of limitation. The cause of action in contract accrues at the time of a breach. Dugan v. Martel, 588 a.2d 744 (Me. 1991); Burke v. Hamilton Beach Div., Scovill Mfg. Co., 424 A.2d 145 (Me. 1981).

Section 752 imposes a six-year limitations period for uninsured motorist contract actions, running from accrual of the cause of action.

Whitten v. Concord General Mutual Insurance · filed 1994-09-23

In an action pursuant to the uninsured motorist provisions of an insurance policy, such as this, the applicable statute of limitations is six years. Here, it began to run when the plaintiffs’ cause of action accrued. 14 M.R.S.A. § 752; Palmero v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 606 A.2d 797, 798 (Me.1992).

Section 752 requires civil actions to be filed within six years after accrual, and a reimbursement claim accrues when the secondary obligor performs its obligation.

MP ASSOCIATES v. Liberty · filed 2001-01-30

Section 752 provides that civil actions must be commenced “within 6 years after the cause of action accrues” but does not specify when the cause of action accrues. ... In considering this issue, we adopt the approach taken by Restatement (Third) of SüRetyship and Guaranty § 62 (1996). ... In the present case, the successful completion of Morse Insurance’s contractual duty occurred on January 1, 1991, when it satisfied its guaranty obligations to, and obtained a release from, Casco. Because the suit was brought on December 3, 1996, Morse Insurance’s claim for reimbursement is not time barred.

Section 752 gives plaintiffs six years from an alleged breach to bring a contract claim; later discovery of the harm did not delay accrual here.

Green v. Suburban Mortgage Assocs., Inc. · filed 2007-11-08

Measured from the date of Suburban's alleged wrongdoing, plaintiffs' contract claims are barred by the six-year statute of limitations. Since all of Suburban's alleged wrongdoing occurred prior to March 1999/ Green had to sue Suburban prior to March 2005. 14 M.R.S. § 752. This action, however, was commenced more than a year later, in April 2006.

Section 752 requires a breach of contract claim to be brought within six years after the breach.

Gile v. Albert · filed 2008-03-20

The general statute of limitations in Maine provides that a civil cause of action must be brought within six years of the date it accrued. 14 M.R.S. § 752 (2007). ... In a breach of contract claim, that date occurs when the defendant breaches the contract. ... The breach of contract action accrued, at the latest, on May 21, 1999, the date on which the Giles’ attorney sent a letter to Albert indicating that the Giles had a cause of action.

Section 752’s six-year period bars a breach-of-seisin claim filed more than six years after delivery of the deed.

Lloyd v. Estate of Robbins · filed 2010-07-08

The deed warranting that Robbins was lawfully seised of the premises was delivered in January 2000. The present action was not brought until January 2008. The Lloyds’ claim for breach of covenant of seisin is therefore barred by the six-year statute of limitations.

Section 752 gives a breach of contract claim a six-year limitations period, even when a related franchise claim has a two-year period.

Fitzpatrick v. TELEFLEX, INC. · filed 2011-02-07

This contract claim accrued at the same time as the franchise claim. However, it is subject to the six-year statute of limitation, 14 M.R.S. § 752, rather than the franchise-specific, two-year statute of limitation.

Section 752 gives contract claims six years from accrual; when repayment is due upon a sale, the period begins when payment is not made after the sale.

Thomsen v. Ward · filed 2012-06-04

As stated above, the statute begins to run only ... when a cause of action accrues. Therefore, this defense depends on the terms of the agreement. If there is an agreement between the parties that payment on these loans and work was to be made out of the sale of the Inn, the statute of limitations begins running from the breach of the contract: the failure to remit payment to the Plaintiff after the sale of the Danforth Inn.

Section 752 gives a plaintiff six years after a claim accrues to sue. When compensation is due at regular intervals, each deficient payment can be a separate breach.

Mangone v. 1330 Dental Associates · filed 2012-06-04

The six-year statute of limitations applies to each count of the Compliant. 14 M.R.S. § 752 (2012). ... The court takes as true, as it must at this procedural stage, the fact that the Defendant was obligated to and did pay the Plaintiff's compensation at separate, regular intervals and, thus, each payment constitutes a failure to perform. Therefore, the court finds that the damages sought in Counts I and II, regarding payroll/ employment taxes that should have been paid prior to November 8, 2005 are barred by the six-year statute of limitations. However, those claims for damages and declarations regarding payments to the Plaintiff after November 8, 2005 are not time-barred.

The six-year limitations period for a claim alleging breach of deed covenants begins when the buyer is evicted or dispossessed of the land.

Lloyd v. Estate of Robbins · filed 2012-12-13

We conclude that the court did not err in finding that the neighboring landowners had not evicted the Lloyds and that the Lloyds were not dispossessed of the land until the court awarded title to the neighbors in June 2005. ... Therefore, the court properly found that the statute of limitations had not expired at the time when the Lloyds filed their complaint alleging Robbins’s breach. See 14 M.R.S. § 752 (2011) (setting out a six-year statute of limitations for civil actions).

Section 752 gives a breach of contract claim six years from the alleged breach, when the cause of action accrues.

Meehan v. Booth · filed 2018-02-02

The limitations period is six years from the time the cause of action accrues. 14 M.R.S.A. §752. In a breach of contract case, such as this one, the time the cause of action accrues is the time of the alleged breach.

Section 752’s six-year period begins when a civil claim accrues; later efforts to fix a breach do not restart that period.

Inhabitants of the County of York v. Propertyinfo Corporation, Inc. · filed 2018-05-18

Maine’s general statute of limitations is 14 M.R.S.A. § 752, which provides, “All civil actions shall be commenced within 6 years after the cause of action accrues and not afterwards . . ..” ... At this point, plaintiffs’ cause of action accrued because they would have been entitled to bring suit against PropertyInfo for providing an insufficient performance. Although the parties worked together to try to remedy the problems with the original tender of performance, this does not constitute a new breach.

Section 752 gives a party six years from accrual to seek reformation of a deed or mortgage for mutual mistake; the claim accrues when the mistaken instruments are executed.

Bank of New York Mellon v. King · filed 2018-08-24

Pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 752, "all civil actions, including equitable claims, must be commenced within six years after the cause of action accrues, unless a more particularized statute applies." ... Because this matter was filed well beyond six years from the date the cause of action for reformation accrued, plaintiff's complaint is untimely with respect to Counts I and II.

Section 752’s six-year period begins when a contract is breached; later efforts to correct a single breach do not toll it.

York County v. PropertyInfo Corporation, Inc. · filed 2019-01-24

Even if we were to bless the “continuing” breach doctrine, the doctrine would not apply to the claim for breach of contract at issue here, where a material breach of a service contract occurred when the defective database was delivered. Because this is not a situation in which the “continuing” breach doctrine could apply, the limitations period was not tolled following the 2006 breach, and we affirm the entry of summary judgment on the contract claim.

Section 752’s six-year period for a breach of contract claim is not tolled by later efforts to correct a defective product when the material breach occurred at delivery.

York Cnty. v. Propertyinfo Corp. · filed 2019-01-24

Even if we were to bless the "continuing" breach doctrine, the doctrine would not apply to the claim for breach of contract at issue here, where a material breach of a service contract occurred when the defective database was delivered. Because this is not a situation in which the "continuing" breach doctrine could apply, the limitations period was not tolled following the 2006 breach, and we affirm the entry of summary judgment on the contract claim.

Section 752 requires civil actions to be filed within six years after the cause of action accrues; a challenge to a zoning change accrues when the change causes a judicially cognizable injury.

Holman v. City of Portland · filed 2022-03-08

Holman's complaint is barred by the statute of limitations. 14 M.R.S. § 752 provides that, with certain exceptions not applicable here, "[a]ll civil actions ... must be commenced within 6 years after the cause of acti9n accrues and not afterwards ..." A cause of action accrues when the plaintiff receives a judicially cognizable injmy, and any injury that might have been sustained by Holman in this case occurred at the time of the zoning change in 1997.

Section 752 gives a plaintiff six years from the accrual of a breach of contract claim to file suit; a later refusal to remedy the breach does not restart that period.

Ogle v. Overlook Road at Bridgton Association · filed 2023-08-11

Civil actions must be commenced “within 6 years after the cause of action accrues and not afterwards.” 14 M.R.S. § 752 (2023). ... The Association breached the Mutual Release in 2011 or early 2012, at the latest. The decision to take no action on Ms. Ogle’s 2016 request was not a new breach giving rise to a new cause of action. Because more than six years passed between the breach and Ms. Ogle’s commencement of this action in October 2018, this action is time-barred.

Section 752 requires civil actions to be commenced within six years after accrual, with accrual delayed under the discovery rule when a fiduciary relationship makes negligence undiscoverable.

Nevin v. Union Trust Co. · filed 1999-03-12

The parties agree that the claims against Union Trust are governed by 14 M.R.S.A. § 752. Section 752 provides that civil actions must be commenced “within 6 years after the cause of action accrues,” but does not specify when the cause of action accrues. ... Accordingly, the discovery rule articulated in Anderson, 428 A.2d at 1192, applies to accrual of the action against Union Trust. On this record, the action is not time barred as a matter of law.

Section 752 gives civil actions in Maine a six-year limitations period, subject to relevant exceptions.

Mexicanos v. DeCoster · filed 1999-05-26

With exceptions not relevant to this case, “civil actions” in Maine carry a six year statute of limitations, see 14 M.R.S.A. § 752, and the Maine farm worker protection statute creates a right to maintain a “civil action,” 26 M.R.S.A. § 588(2). Thus, the six-year statute of limitations applies.

Section 752's six-year limitations period for civil actions begins for a Maine UCSPA claim based on wrongful denial of indemnification when the insurer denies the claim after it has a duty to indemnify; a denial before that duty arises cannot trigger the period.

U.S. Bank, N.A. v. HLC Escrow, Inc. · filed 2019-03-18

We hold here only that the statute of limitations for a Maine UCSPA cause of action alleging injury from a wrongful denial of indemnification begins to run from the date of denial, but only if the insurer at that time had a duty to indemnify under Maine law. Absent such a duty, the denial cannot be wrongful.

Section 752’s six-year filing period began when the plaintiff’s minority toll ended on the effective date of the law lowering the age of majority.

Willey v. Brown · filed 1978-08-15

Neither plaintiff’s disability nor the six-year period expired prior to October 1, 1969. Rather, the plaintiff was provided a full six years from that date in which to pursue his claim.

Section 752 provides a general six-year limitations period that does not govern negligence or implied-contract claims for dental malpractice.

Beegan v. Schmidt · filed 1981-11-09

Both the claims in negligence and those in implied contract are controlled by the two-year statute of limitations applicable to “[ajctions for . . . malpractice of physicians and all others engaged in the healing art,” 14 M.R.S.A. § 753 (1980), and not by the general six-year statute of limitations, 14 M.R.S.A. § 752 (1980).

Section 752 provides a six-year limitations period for civil actions unless another period is specifically provided.

Small v. Inhabitants of the City of Belfast · filed 1982-09-23

The conduct complained of in Dow was in the nature of an infringement upon the property interest of the plaintiff in continued public employment and bears little resemblance either to the intentional torts dealt with in 14 M.R.S.A. § 753 or to any other state cause of action or remedy for which a specific limitations period is prescribed. Therefore, Dow appropriately applied the six-year, catch-all limitations period prescribed in 14 M.R.S.A. § 752. ... The clear analogy between the present federal cause of action and a state action for defamation makes the six-year, catch-all limitations period inappropriate in these circumstances.

Section 752 provides a six-year limitations period for civil actions unless another limitations period applies.

Ouellette v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc. · filed 1983-10-06

We hold that the non-contractual liability resulting from the elimination of privity and premised upon a status measured by reasonable foreseeability sounds in tort rather than in contract, and is subject to the limitations applicable to torts. 14 M.R.S.A. § 752 (1980).

Section 752 provides a six-year limitations period for civil actions, including personal injury tort actions, unless a separate statute provides otherwise.

Jong Hee Small, Personal Representative of the Estate of Delbert Small v. The Inhabitants of the City of Belfast and James Murphy, Etc. · filed 1986-06-27

We are in agreement with the plaintiff that the district court erred in adopting the Maine two-year statute of limitations, 14 M.R.S.A. § 753, and find that the Maine six-year statute of limitations, 14 M.R.S.A. § 752, is the appropriate one to be used for section 1983 cases in the state of Maine.

Section 752 establishes a six-year limitations period for civil actions, including tort claims unless the Legislature provides a different period.

Lerman v. City of Portland · filed 1987-12-11

The Court cannot accept this argument, for Maine has a general statute of limitations for civil actions which provides that “[a]ll civil actions shall be commenced within 6 years after the cause of action accrues and not afterwards_” 14 M.R.S.A. § 752. ... Since there is no specific, separate statutory limitations provision dealing with tort claims brought under the Maine Constitution, the Court finds the general six-year limitation statute applicable.

Section 752 permits an insurance contract to set a shorter limitations period when no statute requires a longer period.

L & a United Grocers, Inc. v. Safeguard Insurance · filed 1983-06-02

However, we reject L & A’s contention that application of the Conformity Clause leads to ambiguity. The one-year limit in the “Special Extended Coverage Endorsement” is not “in conflict with” the six-year statute of limitations.